Greg's version ""Relative time units define time intervals for navigating media relative to the current point (e.g. move forward 30 seconds). When interacting with a time-based media presentation, a user may find it beneficial to move forward or backward via a time interval relative to their current position. For example, a user may find a concept unclear in a video lecture and elect to skip...

17:21:56 [Jan]

...back 30 seconds from the current position to review what had been described. Relative time units may be preset by the user agent, configurable by the user, and/or automatically calculated based upon media duration (e.g. jump 5 seconds in a 30-second clip, or 5 minutes in a 60-minute clip). Relative time units are distinct from absolute time values such as the 2 minute mark, the half-way...

17:21:57 [Jan]

...point, or the end."

17:22:16 [Jan]

SH: It's fine for me

17:22:29 [Jan]

MH: I'd be fine with Greg's version

17:22:35 [Jan]

JS: I'm good

17:23:11 [Jan]

KF: Are we good.

17:23:26 [Jan]

Resolved: Use wording: "Relative time units define time intervals for navigating media relative to the current point (e.g. move forward 30 seconds). When interacting with a time-based media presentation, a user may find it beneficial to move forward or backward via a time interval relative to their current position. For example, a user may find a concept unclear in a video lecture and elect...

17:23:27 [Jan]

...to skip back 30 seconds from the current position to review what had been described. Relative time units may be preset by the user agent, configurable by the user, and/or automatically calculated based upon media duration (e.g. jump 5 seconds in a 30-second clip, or 5 minutes in a 60-minute clip). Relative time units are distinct from absolute time values such as the 2 minute mark, the...

People who use assistive technologies such as screen readers may find that a technology isn't fully compatible with a Web browser, or that the browser doesn't accessibly render content authored in compliance with WCAG. This causes information loss and inconvenience. When this happens, users with disabilities will benefit from being able to easily file a report with the user agent vendor to report the incompatibility, similar the way users can

JS: Suggest, it is recommended but not required that user agent vendors provide staff to respond to such feedback.

17:51:15 [jeanne]

Note: It is recommended, but not required, that the user agent vendor assign staff to review and respond to these comments in a timely manner so that problems can be resolved and overall accessibility can be improved.

17:52:21 [Jan]

GL: What we really mean is that they can iniate the feedback process from within the user agent

17:52:52 [Jan]

MH: Would mechanism be a better word than facility

17:53:03 [Jan]

GL: I don't see a differencwe

17:53:26 [Jan]

GL: Sidetrack...I wanted to change the middle a bit....

17:54:01 [Greg]

I think we need to change the phrase "faults in accessibility support within the user agent", which reads like a single clause, but is really halves of two separate clauses.

17:54:50 [Greg]

The user isn't reporting "faults in accessibility support within the user agent", but "is reporting accessibility faults" using facilities available within the user agent or some such.

17:55:20 [Greg]

The wording is ambiguous.

17:56:05 [Greg]

Reporting "faults in the user agent's accessibility support".

17:56:49 [Jan]

What about "The user agent provides a mechanism for users to report user agent accessibility issues"

17:57:10 [Greg]

"Within the user agent, the user can initiate the process of reporting faults in the user agent's accessibility support."

17:57:38 [Jan]

JS: AA?

17:57:43 [Jan]

KF: No

17:58:33 [jeanne]

A is minimum that everyone is capable of doing.

17:59:07 [jeanne]

AA is more than the minimum, but still very important for groups of people with disabilities

17:59:46 [Jan]

SH: Is is very important!

18:00:14 [Jan]

JR: Agree but problem is timing...has no bearing on the usability at the time of use

18:00:44 [Jan]

JS: Could backfire due to small population

18:01:03 [Jan]

KF: I think its important but its not a real-time thing.

18:01:18 [Jan]

MH: Key thing is report, not reporting and receiving fixes.

18:02:56 [Jan]

JR: I think email in the help is fine.

18:03:11 [Jan]

MH: I'd prefer something more, but its ok.

18:04:09 [Zakim]

-Jeanne

18:04:33 [Jan]

GL: What about a web-based version?

18:04:37 [Jan]

JR: Yes

18:04:44 [Zakim]

+Jeanne

18:04:59 [Jan]

KF: Agree

18:06:02 [Jan]

SH: Concerned that a web-based support system will actually just hide the contact info

18:06:18 [jeanne]

+1 to Kelly's. Keep it open, and more people will implement it.

18:06:41 [Jan]

KF: Agree with concern, but it is the best chance for implementation

18:07:22 [Jan]

SH: I think we can leave it open, if the mechanims is a link to website from menu item, then ok

18:07:59 [Jan]

GL: All seems reasonable but if nothing in the user agent UI, is that ok?

18:08:30 [Jan]

MH: Both JR and GL versions say user agent provides, not that the vendor provides.

18:09:15 [Jan]

GL: Ok so in intent we can explain that iniation happens in the user agent UI

18:09:32 [Jan]

JR: Agree with that

18:09:55 [Jan]

SH: Kudos to Jaime Rice.

18:10:14 [Jan]

GL:+1

18:10:20 [mhakkinen]

+1

18:10:22 [sharper]

+1

18:10:30 [Jan]

KF: In survey also change to example

18:11:09 [jeanne]

Alice is a visually impaired college student who frequently uses a refreshable braille display with her Web browser. Occasionally she experiences difficulty with Web content containing elements such as drop-down list boxes or complex menus, where the text is only partially rendered on the braille display. Alice notices this incompatibility and navigates to the feedback section of her browser. After

18:11:10 [jeanne]

providing some basic information (such as AT software and computer hardware used), Alice is able to describe the problem she encountered and submit the report to the browser vendor.

18:11:38 [jeanne]

+1 to Jan.

18:11:50 [jeanne]

A contact link on a website is not sufficient to satisfy this success criterion.